Cyclists like this... we don't need.

[Beeping-Sleauty]

this will stir up some debate,

BBC NEWS | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Death cyclist fine angers family

so, should the law be changed ?

 

[Nick]

Difficult to say without a few more facts.

 

[john]

I guess that the maximum fine for dangerous cycling is less than that for dangerous driving, however, I would have thought that in this case a more general law relating to negligence would apply.

It does make me think though that perhaps we all fret too much about the possible consequences of our e-bikes being a little outside the regulations.

 

[Blew it]

A tragic but unnecessary death. Existing laws are perfectly adequate to ensure the safe passage of all.

As Nick points out, It is unclear as to whether the young lady was on the road or the pavement. Possibly, there was an element of jay walking. There is however, no excuse for using a bicycle as a weapon, which this rather callous rider in fact did. He should have been jailed!

Surely, the issue here is the old chestnut of "soft sentencing".

Bob.

 

[Nick]

Maybe others have read more than is in this one article, and maybe the cyclist is a vile little man, as quoted in the article, but in isolation it is a tad lacking in information to make any valid judgement - where did this occur? Were any parties drunk? Were the pedestrians being obstructive? Or maybe aggressive? Did the cyclist really say "move because I'm not stopping"? If so, were there mitigating circumstances such as his being committed to a path by other traffic or a group of bears chasing him? Etc, etc. He may be as guilty as sin and deserve to rot away for the rest of his days but, on a few occasions when I have actually known the facts behind news stories, they have rarely figured in the published piece.

 

[john]

Well said, Nick. It is easy to jump to conclusions when only a selection of the facts are known. When I was aware of the full facts of a case (being on the jury) I was surprised at the severity of the sentence imposed.

 

[frank9755]

I feel sorry for the bereaved family. I also feel very sorry for the cyclist. Unless he is truly deranged, I can't imagine he feels good about having killed a pedestrian, and I can't imagine he had any intent to kill. I am sure that if he did then a murder or manslaughter charge would have been brought.

When I read it this morning it sounded like the woman had been on the road and had stepped into the path of the cyclist at the last minute without looking.

As others point out, we don't know the full facts. But on the evidence included in this article alone, I don't see evidence of injustice. It sounded like a tragic accident, not a murder or manslaughter.

Frank

 

[flecc]

I saw the road in question on the midday BBC 1 news and it's an odd shape, starting wide, then narrowing and swerving to the right at the same time so the kerb edge shift is pronounced at the left.

On the one hand it's no way to design a road for traffic for traffic flow, but good for traffic calming where clearly all drivers/riders need to be cautious. As a cyclist or driver I'd treat it with some caution at any time, doubly so with a number of pedestrians around, possibly spilling into the road.

Still not enough evidence to absolutely decide the issue, but I think indicating a responsible cyclist probably should not have had such an accident at that speed.

The £2200 fine should be quite a reminder of that, as will the lifelong memory of the consequence.
.

 

[Django]

It was a cul-de-sac. Kids should be able to play in cul-de-sacs.

To me this is a prima facie case of culpable homicide without intent, though I am obviously not in full possession of the facts and therefore must respect the decision. Nevertheles, if it is true that he was tavelling at 17mph and had time to shout, 'move out of the way because I'm not stopping', but chose not to slow or alter his path, then I can fully appreciate the anger of the bereaved family.

 

[HarryB]

This is quite a minefield isn't it? I am quite sure that if it had been a car involved against either a pedestrian or even a cyclist we wouldn't be talking about it, it certainly wouldn't make the news as it must happen all the time so not newsworthy. So all in all, bad publicity for cyclists yet again for what is an incredibly rare event.

 

[Jeremy]

The risk, as ever, with cases like this is that the reporting in the media is inevitably incomplete and somewhat sensationalised.

It's worth noting that the alleged shouted comment, is just that; it's what the prosecution allege that the defendant said, and what has been widely reported in the press. It is not necessarily what he actually said.

We simply don't know the full circumstances, but we can be certain of one fact; the CPS had the opportunity to make the charge gross negligence manslaughter, which carries a mandatory prison sentence if found guilty, but instead they chose to go for the lesser charge of dangerous cycling, which only attracts a maximum £2500 fine.

My guess is that there was either insufficient evidence for them to go for manslaughter (not likely in view of the eventual outcome) or that there was a degree of contributory negligence on the part of the young lady that was killed.

Jeremy